CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03847.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03847.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03847.a1

Oct 19, 2018· Hon. Charles C. Hale· appeal

Summary

The Department of Defense denied a security clearance application under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to the applicant's unresolved debts. The applicant, representing himself, failed to demonstrate adequate attempts to address these financial obligations.

Specifically, the denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations. The applicant's arguments regarding new evidence were found to lack merit, as he did not provide sufficient information to support his appeal.

Ultimately, the Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not made satisfactory efforts to resolve his financial issues, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“New evidence consists of matters that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration.”
— ISCR Case No. 17-03247 at 1 (App. Bd. Sep. 20, 2018)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 3, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 1, 2018
Decision dateOct 19, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Insufficient Demonstration of Debt Resolution Efforts by the Applicant

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the judge's decision was incorrect but did not allege any specific harmful error. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no merit in the applicant's arguments.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The applicant's arguments were found to lack merit, particularly regarding the submission of new evidence.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James E. Moody
Charles C. Hale
James F. Duffy

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant further argues that the document attached to his appeal brief is not new evidence. As best we discern, he is arguing that, since the document was in existence before the Judge rendered his decision and because it would likely affect the outcome of the decision, it was not new evidence. This argument lacks merit. New evidence consists of matters that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03847.a1 DATE: 10/19/2018 DATE: October 19, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-03847

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 3, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 1, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Indeed, Applicant states, “it was not that the Administrative Judge was wrong with his/her decision in this case, but that I failed to submit evidence to prove that I have been trying to extinguish this debt of six years.” Appeal Brief at 1. However, he also contends the decision is wrong because it states he made no attempt to pay off his debt. In support of this contention, he attached a document to his appeal brief that is not included in the record. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant further argues that the document attached to his appeal brief is not new evidence. As best we discern, he is arguing that, since the document was in existence before the Judge rendered his decision and because it would likely affect the outcome of the decision, it was not new evidence. This argument lacks merit. New evidence consists of matters that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03247 at 1 (App. Bd. Sep. 20, 2018). In this regard, we note that the document in question post-dates Applicant’s response to the SOR and that he did not submit a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), which highlighted that he failed to provide documentation showing the status of his delinquent debts.

Applicant states that he did not know how to submit evidence after he had submitted his answer to the SOR. Applicant received a letter from DOHA advising him of his right to respond in writing to the FORM. This letter provided the address and the name of the DOHA official to whom Applicant was to send his response. If Applicant did not know how to respond to the FORM, it was not due to inadequate guidance by DOHA. The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board